US election briefing: The leaking starts here

As a long election season winds towards its conclusion, political journalists know to watch for one telltale sign that is the best indicator of how a particular campaign is feeling about its chances. To put it simply: Is it leaking?

I remember covering Hilary Clinton's first Senate race, against Republican Rick Lazio, in 2000. The race was close until late September, when she pulled ahead by six to eight points. Throughout October, the Lazio efforts became desperate. And in the midst of that, it became a daily entertainment to pick up the New York papers and see unnamed "high-level sources in the Lazio camp" pointing fingers at one another. When aides are using the newspapers to settle scores and set up a narrative that exculpates them from responsibility for the expected loss, you know that the circular firing squad is in formation.

Earlier this week, John McCain, in an interview with the conservative Washington Times, said some nasty things about George Bush's handling of matters from Iraq to domestic spending in a last-ditch attempt to wriggle free of the shackle around his ankle that is the incumbent president. This, as you'd imagine, did not sit well with White House aides and even some other Republican political pros who believe McCain's problems have more to do with McCain than with Bush. The Politico newspaper picked up the scent and reported on Thursday that "coordination between the McCain campaign and Republican national committee, always uneven, is now nearly dysfunctional". One of those unnamed "top Republicans" told the paper: "It drives you crazy."

Democrats, having lost more presidential elections in recent history, are usually the ones cast in these roles. The New Republic, a leading liberal opinion journal based in Washington, even started publishing (in 1988, I think, after the Democrats' third straight loss) a Quadrennial Recriminations Issue. The editors there today are surely relieved but also a bit flummoxed at the likelihood that they won't be able to reprise the tradition.

Before I go any further down this road: no, it ain't over 'til it's over (an old baseball saying, coined by the same fellow who once said something else that could apply to the McCain campaign, after taking a wrong turn on a driving trip with some friends: "We may be lost, but we're making good time"). At this point, it would probably take a completely unforeseen event for McCain to reverse Barack Obama's momentum. But unforeseen events happen, and Obama's lead is not insurmountably large. I've seen bigger ones dissipate in a week.

Even so, without making any premature predictions, it is still possible to observe that what's going on now is that Republicans and conservatives are psychologically preparing themselves for defeat and starting to think about how to put Humpty together again after November 4. These arguments - I speak from long Democratic experience - usually have two components, the strategic and the philosophical.

One contingent will argue that the problems were merely strategic, and that if a different kind of campaign had been run, victory would have been assured. Another group will insist the problems run deeper. I remember being at one gloomy postmortem in late 2004 when, after various folk offered their theories on why John Kerry had lost, one man simply shook his head and said: "No one knows what we stand for any more." He silenced the room.

There'll be time for that. But between now and November 4, keep an eye out for those stories featuring unnamed campaign sources griping that McCain should be spending more time in Pennsylvania, or less time, or no time at all. And take note : you won't see any such stories emanating from Obama camp.